Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> So we are really decreasing the specified precision from 1000 to 508,
> and the computational precision from 4096 to 508.
The internal computational precision isn't any less, the limit is only
on the result of a function (ie, partial results within one of the
numeric.c routines could still exceed 10^508). Not sure how much that
distinction matters though.
> Is there any plan to
> fix the silent overflow problem? Is that in the patch? I don't see it.
It will get fixed before application ;-)
I haven't reviewed the patch yet; I think the gating factor at this
point is whether anyone protests losing dynamic range in NUMERIC,
and we ought to go ahead and ask that. After that we can look at the
code more closely.
regards, tom lane